MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3062076402 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01445-z

Survival by histology among patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma who undergo metastasectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3062076402 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Wang, Megan Delisle, Denise Smith, Amirrtha Srikanthan

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastasectomySoft tissue sarcomaMEDLINECohortSarcomaMeta-analysisSystematic reviewCohort studyRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Cochrane LibrarySurgeryInternal medicinePathologyMetastasisAlternative medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Metastasectomy is performed on a select cohort of patients with advanced and/or recurrent bone and soft tissue sarcomas because of the potential for long term relapse free and overall survival associated with the procedure. However, the evidence supporting metastasectomy is difficult to summarize without a systematic examination of existing literature. The objective of this systematic review will be to examine survival among both adults and children with advanced and recurrent bone and STS who undergo metastasectomy. METHODS: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. We will include data from survival studies (e.g., randomized trials, cohort studies, routine case registries, and case control) conducted in children and adults with advanced and recurrent bone and soft tissue sarcoma who undergo metastasectomy. The primary outcome will be overall survival. Secondary outcomes will be 30-day post-operative mortality, recurrence-free survival, time off systemic therapy, and patient-reported outcomes including quality of life end points where available. Literature searches will be performed in multiple electronic databases including Ovid MEDLINE ® (1946 to present), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be identified through searching references, conference abstracts, Papers First, and Google Scholar. Two investigators will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Full-text articles selected for analysis will be assessed for quality and risk of bias. If feasible, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis. Estimates will be stratified according to histology comparing survival based on organ of metastasectomy. Additional analysis will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity according to various patient, disease, and treatment characteristics (e.g., metastasis status, age, disease burden, and concomitant interventions). DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify, evaluate, and integrate data on survival of metastasectomy of bone and soft tissue sarcoma by organ of metastasis. Our findings may have implications for clinicians, patients, and their families when considering selection for resection of oligometastatic disease in de novo, or recurrent bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Implications for future research will be identified to improve the outcomes of these complex patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019126906.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0550.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207